Treat others with basic decency. No personal attacks, hate-speech, flaming, baiting, trolling, witch-hunting, or unsubstantiated accusations. Threats of violence will result in a ban. More Info.

Do not post users' personal information.

Users who violate this rule will be banned on sight. Witch-hunting and giving out private personal details of other people can result in unexpected and potentially serious consequences for the individual targeted. More Info.

Vote based on quality, not opinion.

Political discussion requires varied opinions. Well written and interesting content can be worthwhile, even if you disagree with it. Downvote only if you think a comment/post does not contribute to the thread it is posted in or if it is off-topic in /r/politics. More Info.

Do not manipulate comments and posts via group voting.

Manipulating comments and posts via group voting is against reddit TOS. More Info.

Use "no participation" links when linking to other subreddits.

Please use np.reddit.com links if you wish to link threads found on /r/politics to an outside subreddit. More Info.

Your title should be comprised only of the copied and pasted headline of the article and/or exact quotes. The selection of quotes should reflect the article as a whole. More Info.

Submissions must be an original source.

An article must contain significant analysis and original content--not just a few links of text among chunks of copy and pasted material. Content is considered rehosted when a publication takes the majority of their content from another website and reposts it in order to get the traffic and collect ad revenue. More Info.

Spam is bad!

If 33% or more of your submissions are from a single website, you will be banned as a spammer. More Info.

The ALL CAPS and 'Breaking' rule is applied even when the actual title of the article is in all caps or contains the word 'Breaking'. This rule may be applied to other single word declarative and/or sensational expressions, such as 'EXCLUSIVE:' or 'HOT:'. More Info.

Self-Posts are allowed on Saturdays.

Self posts must adhere to our on topic statement.. Meta posts (posts about /r/Politics and not the topic of politics) are not allowed. Please message the mods with your feedback about the subreddit. More Info.

They are on their way to becoming babies. I don't know what Jesus has to do with it though unless you are implying I'm some sort of religious nut which I am not. The second after the baby would be born, anyone would say it would be horrendous to do such a thing. I just don't get the disconnect from the two

The disconnect is that when a fetus is wholly dependent upon the woman's body for its existence, it is not ok to tell a woman that she has no right to her own bodily integrity. My body, including my uterus, is mine. Why should I lose the right to decide what happens to my own body?

A second or first trimester baby has very few nueral connections. Youre terminating a petri dish. Forcing girls and women to abide by someone elses religious practices by kidnapping, restraint and very likely major surgery is horror movie cult bullshit.

A petri dish that will soon be a living human being. Killing is wrong regardless of religious beliefs or other bullshit. I don't get why the petri dish is okay to destroy. I don't care if the baby cant feel death. I care about the baby or in this case the baby to be. I realize the woman could not "very likely" have major surgery and if that were the rare case, then fine, but I am referring to a person having an abortion without such complications

Why should we care!?! If we're justifying deliberately ending a potential human life we better have a better goddamn reason than, "Well, a third of them will die anyway. " I get that government regulation of personal rights is a scary topic and I certainly can't say that I feel strongly enough about abortion to ever actively advocate for more restrictions, but this issue is unique in its enormity.

That petri dish analogy is fucked, by the way. No petri dish culture will ever become a human being, and acting otherwise, rhetorically or not, seems like a pretty callous view on the value of human life in general.

I was having a similar discussion yesterday and had a thought... Accepting your premise, does the state not have a compelling interest to protect this potential life? If so, then you surely agree that it absolutely necessary for the state to do everything within it's means to insure that this potential life is successfully delivered. Accepting this line of logic, then it surely makes sense for the state to provide nutrition, medical care, employment, etc. for the mother to insure this potential life has every opportunity to succeed. I propose that we immediately institute universal health care (protecting potential lives..) and nutritional assistance, etc. for all fertile women. Since we can not possibly know who is having sex and could potentially be carrying a fertilized egg, we must side with caution and insure that no fertile woman every miscarries due to poor health care, poor nutrition, etc. Texas can become the beacon for the rest of the country in showing how much it respects potential life.

If we're justifying deliberately ending a potential human life we better have a better goddamn reason than, "Well, a third of them will die anyway. "

But that's the whole point -- it might not even have the potential that you keep claiming.

Yeah, maybe it will live. Or maybe it won't. And that's not including the multitude of deformities and problems as well where it dies six weeks after it's born. Why is it so important, if we have no idea the outcome anyway?

33% of all deliveries in 2012 in the US. I dont call that unlikely. Its ok to destroy the petri dish because it has no conciousness, none. Its not a person anymore than my sperm are people or a frog is a person. You want to force a woman to have a baby either because of your arbitrary religious beliefs or your arbitrary secular beliefs. Either way science does not support you and human rights precedent sure the hell doesnt.

Please understand that I was trying to see your point of view of the issue and not argue. There is no need to be condescending or insulting my views or beliefs by calling them arbitrary or throwing assumptions. You can get your point across without being condescending or accusatory

You are trying to justify violence against women. Im sorry but Im not going to pretend that doesnt make me angry and that I dont think its disgusting. I dont care why you think you should be allowed to brutalize these women. The fact that youre doing it is an insult to the dignity of the human race.

I don't value one over the other. I value both. If a woman were to die from carrying the baby, then certainly an abortion would be the best route if and only if the mother would choose to do so; and we both know there are women out there who would rather risk their own lives instead of aborting. With that being said, the mother can assess the dangers for herself and knowingly weigh the risks. A baby, however, cannot for many years even after birth. They get no say in their own lives and at what point do we get to chose that for another human being. I know people will argue that a fetus is not a baby, but it will be one day. Otherwise, there would be no reason for the abortion in the first place. I don't understand the disconnect for some between the fetal stage and baby stage. I don't care that the brain isn't functioning at that point. I just can't wrap my head around that aspect of it; it's what stops me every time I've considered the woman's right to chose viewpoint and am hoping someone can give me some insight into what they believe without being derogatory or nasty about it

Okay now say a woman has to get some sort of organ transplant to live. It should be fine for her to use her two year old child's organ without consent even if they die in the process right? If like you say a fetus is a person and should be afforded the same rights as one why would it be okay to sacrifice it's life to save the mother but not the toddler?

Not what I was saying at all. And in a general sense of the subject, if we are being honest, most abortions are NOT these special hypothetical instances. Those would of course need to be considered differently but to say that these scenarios would apply to all cases would be dishonest at best.
With that being said...No that would never be okay to sacrifice the woman's life OR the fetuses or 2 year old's life to save one or the other. What I was trying to say there was that say a woman would need to have an abortion to save her life due to the risks. Some women, even fully understanding the dangers to herself, would still rather go through with the pregnancy rather than abort their baby and she should be allowed to if she is of sound mind